Was he walking? Cycling? Driving a car? A truck? Flying? On a boat? A ship? Was he in a dangerous situation?

Was the map a printed map? Was the map inaccurate because someone made a mistake while drawing/printing/producing the map? Because someone intentionally put wrong/inaccurate information into the map? Because the map was out of date? Because it was simply not very detailed?

Was he walking? This. Cycling? Driving a car? A truck? Flying? On a boat? A ship? Was he in a dangerous situation? Yes.

Was the map a printed map? Yes.Was the map inaccurate because someone made a mistake while drawing/printing/producing the map? No. Because someone intentionally put wrong/inaccurate information into the map? Yes, but look out for an FA. Because the map was out of date? No. Because it was simply not very detailed? This is closest.

Was the inaccuracy on the map placed there by the original map-maker? Did he place the inaccuracy there? Was it a copyright trap? Was the paper it had been printed on damaged or missing sections?

Does the map depict an area on earth? If yes, could it potentially depict an area other than on earth? Is it a map of: a house (or similarly sized area)? A street? A city? A district or state? A country? A portion of a continent or whole continent? The sea?

You said yes to "did he actually use the map" -- does this mean he was using the map to find his way, in the manner one would normally use a map? Did he have it in his possession at the time he "wasn't lost"? Had he memorised it?

Was he walking in a city/town? Villages, occasionally. A forest? This. Mountains? And this. A desert? No.

Was he walking on streets? No. Footpaths? This. Without any path? And this, at times.

Was the map really a map of the area he was in? Yope. Was it a map a walker typically would use? No.

Was the inaccuracy on the map placed there by the original map-maker? Yes. Did he place the inaccuracy there? The man in the puzzle? No. Was it a copyright trap? No. Was the paper it had been printed on damaged or missing sections? No.

Does the map depict an area on earth? No. If yes, could it potentially depict an area other than on earth? No. Is it a map of: a house (or similarly sized area)? A street? A city? A district or state? This, no others. A country? A portion of a continent or whole continent? The sea?

You said yes to "did he actually use the map" -- does this mean he was using the map to find his way, in the manner one would normally use a map? Yope. Did he have it in his possession at the time he "wasn't lost"? Yes. Had he memorised it? No.

It is the map of a state but not of an area on earth. Does the map show (part of) a fantasy world? No. Some other planet than Earth? Does the map show something underground? Is it a star map? NO, it is actually Earth. My screwup.

For what reason does the man walk the area? Business? No. Some military operation? This, though some other governmental and civil activities would work. A governmental activity? Tourism? No. Is he chasing someone? Fleeing someone? Is he trying to find someone? Find something? Any or all of these, depending on circumstances.

Is the map a roadmap? A marine chart? A map focusing on a special part of the landscape (e.g. showing especially powerlines, mines, or forests)? None of the above.

Does the man know he was in danger? Yes. Would he be less endangered if his map was more accurate? Probably, yes.

Is he undergoing a test? No. Training? No. Do the "others" involved have a map? Yes. The same map as his? Yes. Are they with him? No.

Was he in a country foreign to him? Yes. Is the time period this occoured in relevent, Yes. and if so, LTPF list of dates? 1944. How long does this situation last for -- hours, days, weeks, months? Longer? A few months at most.

Are the others hostile towards him, or are they on his side? The latter. Are they the ones tracking him? Yes. Is the area foreign to them? Yes. Was he utilising the errors in his map to evade them? No.

Was he scouting the area in an attempt to determine which parts of the map were inaccurate? Had the map been drawn by a local cartographer, with the inaccuracies designed to confuse foreign soldiers such as our hero? ...because the inaccuracies were hiding military bases, or something else they didn't want the enemy to know about?

Was he scouting the area in an attempt to determine which parts of the map were inaccurate? Had the map been drawn by a local cartographer, with the inaccuracies designed to confuse foreign soldiers such as our hero? ...because the inaccuracies were hiding military bases, or something else they didn't want the enemy to know about? No to all.

Was he in Europe? Was the map old or ancient? Had the map been drawn long before 1944? Puzzle title relevant? Did the author of the map intentionally put inaccuracies in the map, or was he just doing the best he could?

Was he in Europe? No. Was the map old or ancient? Might be old, but not ancient. Had the map been drawn long before 1944? Years, possibly decades. Puzzle title relevant? Somewhat. Did the author of the map intentionally put inaccuracies in the map, or was he just doing the best he could? The latter.

Is his nationality relevant? If so, was he American? Japanese? German? Other? Was he in the Americas? In Asia? In Japan? In the Pacific?

Was he trying to reach a certain spot indicated on the map? Was he trying to reach a certain goal? A meeting point? If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, was he looking for the same place during the whole period he had the map (you said the situation could have lasted for a few months)?

Is his nationality relevant? Somewhat. If so, was he American? Japanese? German? Other? This. Was he in the Americas? In Asia? This. In Japan? In the Pacific?

Was he trying to reach a certain spot indicated on the map? No. Was he trying to reach a certain goal? This is possible. A meeting point? So is this. If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, was he looking for the same place during the whole period he had the map (you said the situation could have lasted for a few months)? No.

Oh, just another thought. Had the area changed significantly since the map was drawn? No. I am thinking of things like eruptions, earthquakes... Was the map more accurate when it was drawn? No.

Is he in Bhutan? In the Himalayas? Was he looking for a person or a group of persons, or a location?

If it was a location, and assuming that he is in Bhutan (from the title), then was he looking for a way out of the country? And he could not be lost because, whatever direction he walked in, would lead to an international boundary (as Bhutan is landlocked)?

Welcome, Indianforce. I've been hoping you'd join in this puzzle, because your nickname happens to be relevant. ;)

Is he in Bhutan? In the Himalayas? No to both. Was he looking for a person or a group of persons, or a location? Both.

If it was a location, and assuming that he is in Bhutan (from the title) He isn't; the title has a different relevance, then was he looking for a way out of the country? No. And he could not be lost because, whatever direction he walked in, would lead to an international boundary (as Bhutan is landlocked)? No.

Is he looking for yetis? Maybe the map shows (or is supposed to show) where this legendary creature could be (or was, decades ago), and has become inaccurate now. And thus, even though his map is inaccurate, he is not lost; he just cannot find Bigfoot.

So the guy is Indian? Irrelevant. Or is he in India? No.Is he looking for yetis? No. Maybe the map shows (or is supposed to show) where this legendary creature could be (or was, decades ago), and has become inaccurate now. And thus, even though his map is inaccurate, he is not lost; he just cannot find Bigfoot.

Perhaps a restatement of the question might help. I thought for a while about how to phrase it, but I reckon I've got a better one.

His map was inaccurate, but they still knew where he was.

Re: the exact location and the relevance of the title, more countries than Bhutan and China have traditions of dragons. I'll tell you right out that it's Burma (today known as Myanmar). However, the title does have another, more important relevance.

I have also mentioned that Indianforce's nickname is uniquely relevant to the situation.

Finally, remember that this is set in 1944. That's relevant for more than one reason as well.

(Huh, just noticed that one of my other puzzles is ALSO set in 1944... I must be on a WWII kick this month. :p

Okay, so does the puzzle involve the Indian air force? No. There are other forces besides air forces.Is Japan relevant at all? Only because they happened to be the adversary in this particular war.I.E: First Indian fight in Burma was against the Japanese. Well, no, it was against the Burmese in the 1840s, but in the context of the puzzle, yes, you're right. :p

Would it be helpful to figure out the other significance of dragons in relation to the puzzle? Yes.Anything to do with Burma Jade or Luck? No to both.Or the German Term 'Dragon's Teeth' used in World War II? No.

"They" refers to the man's enemy? Allies / side? Is he wearing any jewelry? Relevant? Is the man and his enemy communicating in some sort of way? Does the enemy know where he is? Do his allies know where is is? Are they communicating with him in some sort of way?

"They" refers to the man's enemy? No.Allies / side? Yes.Is he wearing any jewelry? Irrelevant.Relevant? Is the man and his enemy communicating in some sort of way? No.Does the enemy know where he is? Irrelevant.Do his allies know where is is? Yes.Are they communicating with him in some sort of way? Yes.

A recap and restatement of the puzzle: A man walks into WWII Burma with an inaccurate map. Despite the map's inaccuracy, he is still able to communicate his position.

As a minor hint, I'll give you the significance of Indianforce's handle, which is that Indian military forces were involved in this incident. A specific Indian force, in fact, which any British readers will probably have heard of (but don't have to know to solve the puzzle).

Does he have a radio? Tracking device? Mobile phone? Would it help to find out more about the map? Is he holding anything metal? Relevant? Can they see or hear him in any way? Can he see or hear them in any way? Marco Polo relevant?

Does he have a radio? Yes. Tracking device? No. Mobile phone? No.Would it help to find out more about the map? Yes.Is he holding anything metal? IrrelevantRelevant? Can they see or hear him in any way? Yes.Can he see or hear them in any way? Yes.Marco Polo relevant? No.

Did the cartographer expect the terrain to change? Did he draw the map with the intention of it being used in the future? Did the map-user know that it was misdrawn on purpose, but knew what the map was supposed to look like anyway? [Rawr, it's starting to get confusing, so I'll use an example:] Let's say it's the year 2000. I am a cartographer, and there is evidence that in the year 2050, mountain A will move 50 miles east. So I draw my map, and I'll draw mountain A 50 miles to east, even though it'll happen in 50 years. It's now the year 2050, and my nephew is using this map. Turns out mountain A didn't move at all, so my map is now inaccurate, however I know that mountain A was supposed to move. So I know where I am, and my team knows where I am.

Did the cartographer expect the terrain to change? No.Did he draw the map with the intention of it being used in the future? Possibly.Did the map-user know that it was misdrawn on purpose, Yes. but knew what the map was supposed to look like anyway? No.[Rawr, it's starting to get confusing, so I'll use an example:] Let's say it's the year 2000. I am a cartographer, and there is evidence that in the year 2050, mountain A will move 50 miles east. So I draw my map, and I'll draw mountain A 50 miles to east, even though it'll happen in 50 years. It's now the year 2050, and my nephew is using this map. Turns out mountain A didn't move at all, so my map is now inaccurate, however I know that mountain A was supposed to move. So I know where I am, and my team knows where I am. Not like this at all.

This is probably completely incorrect, but I had fun. :3 Glad to hear it.

To hide some place from being detected? To mislead a certain group of people? To mislead everybody? To protect something? To replicate another map that is inaccurate? Yes, but why is the first one inaccurate? No to the rest.

Picking up on the last idea, were there more than one map, and that were inaccurate in the same way? Yes.

Was the error added to the original map intentionally? to mislead the enemy? to catch copyright infringers? (like the "ghost streets" in some city maps) Did those who replicated the map know about the error? Did the man know? Did the man communicate his position according to the map? but those who were searching for him knew about the error and could calculate the right position?

Was the error added to the original map intentionally? Yes.to mislead the enemy? No.to catch copyright infringers? (like the "ghost streets" in some city maps) No.Did those who replicated the map know about the error? Yes.Did the man know? Yes.Did the man communicate his position according to the map? Yes. but those who were searching for him knew about the error and could calculate the right position? Yes. You're almost there!

Maps have at least 3 layers of information: 1. Geographical features, such as lakes, rivers, and natural boundaries. 2. Man made physical features, such as roads and buildings 3. Intangible items such as political boundaries, lines of demarcation, and labels.

Is this an accurate description of this map? Does the error involve layer 1? 2? 3?

Maps have at least 3 layers of information: 1. Geographical features, such as lakes, rivers, and natural boundaries. 2. Man made physical features, such as roads and buildings. 3. Intangible items such as political boundaries, lines of demarcation, and labels.

Is this an accurate description of this map? Yes, except...Does the error involve layer 1? 2? 3? All three, but I will tell you labels are particularly relevant.

Is the error due to the map being outdated? Hmm. The map IS outdated, but it wasn't correct when originally drawn, either.

Part of the map in general is in error -- does this mean that a portion (like the left half) of the map is inaccurate? Is a certain area mislabeled? Due to a territorial dispute? Is a certain area warped or distorted?

Or is one of the general qualities or features of the map out of whack? Like the scale is off? Or the difference between magnetic and true north is pronounced? Is the legend incorrect? They colored the water wrong.

Whatever way you are supposed to handle the problem of mapping the curved surface of the earth onto a flat piece of paper, they did it wrong?

The original mapmaker spilled ketchup on the map, the stain of which has been faithfully reproduced by subsequent mapmakers.

You said the labeling was relevant. Just to be clear, if you removed all of the writing and labels off the map, would it still be inaccurate?

an off-topic question about the conventions followed in this forum - when you answer "yes, but ..." does this mean that the answer is yes, but with certain qualifications?

Do I need to know much about cartography to solve this? No; however, the puzzle does hinge on a well-known convention of maps.

Part of the map in general is in error -- does this mean that a portion (like the left half) of the map is inaccurate? Yes. Is a certain area mislabeled? Due to a territorial dispute? Is a certain area warped or distorted? No to the rest.

Or is one of the general qualities or features of the map out of whack? Like the scale is off? Or the difference between magnetic and true north is pronounced? Is the legend incorrect? They colored the water wrong. No to all.

Whatever way you are supposed to handle the problem of mapping the curved surface of the earth onto a flat piece of paper, they did it wrong? No.

The original mapmaker spilled ketchup on the map, the stain of which has been faithfully reproduced by subsequent mapmakers. No.

You said the labeling was relevant. Just to be clear, if you removed all of the writing and labels off the map, would it still be inaccurate? Yes, and it could no longer be so useful despite the inaccuracy.

an off-topic question about the conventions followed in this forum - when you answer "yes, but ..." does this mean that the answer is yes, but with certain qualifications? Correct.

Was the map intentionally drawn to include certain errors such that if the map were to fall into the hands of an outsider or intruder, they would be misled?

For example, if I don't want the enemy to find some place, I omit it from the map and redraw the terrain around it.

Were the inaccurarcies included to allow some kind of encryption? So the soldier and his allies can communicate about the soldier's position or destination without the enemy (or other unwanted listeners) being able to understand the communication?

Were the inaccurarcies included to allow some kind of encryption? So the soldier and his allies can communicate about the soldier's position or destination without the enemy (or other unwanted listeners) being able to understand the communication? No.

Helpful to understand why the original mapmaker introduced the error? Yes.

You said it was intentional, correct? Correct. Did it relate to personal reasons? Religion? Nationalism? Politics? Military? None of the above.

Were all of the available maps of this area inaccurate? Yes. Or were some accurate?

A certain portion of the map was inaccurate -- was it a distinct and specific area? Yes. Did it encompass an area greater than 100 sq miles? Assume this. Beyond that, size is irrelevant, except that it takes several days to get through. 10? 1?

You answered yes that the inaccuracy was an omission -- is this the crux of the inaccuracy? Yes. Aside from the omission, was the rest of the map accurate? Yes.

Were geographical features omitted? Man made features omitted? Were roads or trails omitted? Yes to all.

Ok, I feel like I'm making some progress. It is now clear to me that I have absolutely no idea. Before I was confused, thinking that possibly I had a clue, but now I am firmly grounded in the reality that I am completely clueless. At least I got THAT figured out.

Kind of like walking through a forest with a screwed up map.

Was the error introduced because the original mapmaker could not access the area? Was there some difficulty in mapping this area? Was the decision not to map the decision of one person (the mapmaker) or were there multiple people involved? Was the goverment involved? Were there legal issues with mapping the area?

Was the omission related to the effort and resources required to map the entire area? Was the area so desolate, unpopulated and untraveled that there was no perceived value in mapping it? Or the effort required to map it was far greater than the value of the information gained?

Was the area originally under water? Is water involved? Is it a mountainous area? Heavily forested area? Desert? Inhospitable?

Is the area of omission represented as land? Water? A blank featureless area?

Does the area of omission have distinct borders? Are these represented on the map as lines? Color differences? Are the lines straight? If not, do they follow geographical features such as rivers, shores, or mountains? Is the area a geometric shape such as a rectangle? Or is it a blob? Is it landlocked?

Ok, I feel like I'm making some progress. It is now clear to me that I have absolutely no idea. Before I was confused, thinking that possibly I had a clue, but now I am firmly grounded in the reality that I am completely clueless. At least I got THAT figured out. How do you REALLY feel? :p

Kind of like walking through a forest with a screwed up map.

Was the error introduced because the original mapmaker could not access the area? Yes. Was there some difficulty in mapping this area? Yes. Was the decision not to map the decision of one person (the mapmaker) or were there multiple people involved? Irrelevant. Was the goverment involved? Yes. Were there legal issues with mapping the area? No.

Was the omission related to the effort and resources required to map the entire area? Yes. Was the area so desolate, unpopulated and untraveled that there was no perceived value in mapping it? Possibly, but the next is more likely. Or the effort required to map it was far greater than the value of the information gained? This, mostly.

Was the area originally under water? Is water involved? Is it a mountainous area? Heavily forested area? Assume mountainous jungle, none of the others. Desert? Inhospitable?

Is the area of omission represented as land? Water? A blank featureless area? This, but...

Does the area of omission have distinct borders? Irrelevant. Are these represented on the map as lines? Color differences? Are the lines straight? If not, do they follow geographical features such as rivers, shores, or mountains? Is the area a geometric shape such as a rectangle? Or is it a blob? Assume this. Is it landlocked? Yes.

You're right on top of the answer. For the last bit, figure out how he navigated through this seemingly trackless waste.

Oh. Seems like I had lost sight of the point of the puzzle. The inaccuracy is just that the area in question is uncharted for whatever reason. The question isn't so much about why the area he is in is uncharted, but rather how he was able to navigate while in that area, right?

To be clear, there's splotch of uncharted territory on the map, he's inside of it, yet he's not lost, right?

Let's define "not lost". Does it mean that he knows where he is, and he can pinpoint his location on the uncharted area in the map? In other words, as he makes his way around the area, would he have been able to fill in details on the map and chart at least the areas he had visited?

Or is he using a more liberal version of "not lost", e.g. "I know I'm somewhere in this area. I know I'm not outside of it. I know I'm at least 10 miles north of the southern most border because I've traveled 10 miles in a northerly direction, etc. Therefore I'm not lost"

Assuming he really does know where he is pretty accurately, the question is how did he do that, right?

Okay -- he has a radio and this map. Does he have any other instruments or items that he uses to assist with navigation? A compass? Sextant? Binoculars? Telescope?

Is the map used at all? If so, is it used for more than to define the shape of the uncharted territory?

He is communicating to allies via radio -- is he communicating in any other way?

Is he communicating with people who are inside of the uncharted territory?

Is triangulation involved?

Assuming he can orient himself and navigate directionally using stars and sun, correct?

Does he tell people where he is? Or do people tell him where he is? Is it a team effort?

Is some trial and error involved, such that his knowledge of his location is refined over time?

Is he moving? Is his movement used to locate him?

Are his radio transmissions the primary means to locate him?

Does he use visual references from the area of the map that is accurate, such as mountain tops?

Oh. Seems like I had lost sight of the point of the puzzle. The inaccuracy is just that the area in question is uncharted for whatever reason. The question isn't so much about why the area he is in is uncharted, but rather how he was able to navigate while in that area, right? Correct.

To be clear, there's splotch of uncharted territory on the map, he's inside of it, yet he's not lost, right? Correct.

Let's define "not lost". Does it mean that he knows where he is, and he can pinpoint his location on the uncharted area in the map? Yes. In other words, as he makes his way around the area, would he have been able to fill in details on the map and chart at least the areas he had visited? He could, if he chose.

Or is he using a more liberal version of "not lost", e.g. "I know I'm somewhere in this area. I know I'm not outside of it. I know I'm at least 10 miles north of the southern most border because I've traveled 10 miles in a northerly direction, etc. Therefore I'm not lost" But this is closer to what he's doing.

Assuming he really does know where he is pretty accurately, the question is how did he do that, right? Yes.

Okay -- he has a radio and this map. Does he have any other instruments or items that he uses to assist with navigation? A compass? Sextant? Binoculars? Telescope? Irrelevant. Assume he has anything a military or exploratory expedition would have -- compass, field glasses, engineering equipment, and so on.

Is the map used at all? Yes. If so, is it used for more than to define the shape of the uncharted territory? Yes.

He is communicating to allies via radio -- is he communicating in any other way? None that are relevant.

Is he communicating with people who are inside of the uncharted territory? {Possibly, but only for the same purposes that he's communicating with home base.}

Is triangulation involved? Not for the purposes of this puzzle.

Assuming he can orient himself and navigate directionally using stars and sun, correct? Depends on the terrain and weather, but irrelevant.

Does he tell people where he is? Yes. Or do people tell him where he is? No. Is it a team effort? Not in terms of how he's navigating. Since he gets supplies from base, however, he needs to do his navigation correctly and his suppliers need to pay close attention.

Is some trial and error involved, such that his knowledge of his location is refined over time? Irrelevant.

Is he moving? Yes. Is his movement used to locate him? Like leaving tracks or signs? No.

Are his radio transmissions the primary means to locate him? No. They are the primary means of communication. It is possible to home in on radio signals, but that's irrelevant for purposes of this puzzle.

Does he use visual references from the area of the map that is accurate, such as mountain tops? No. Assume the area is completely unmapped.

Is his base located inside the uncharted territory? Is its position known? Is it used as a reference point?

Is his means of navigation particularly clever and innovative (thereby becoming the object of this puzzle), or is it more brute force (he sets out from his home base using well-known navigational techniques such as dead reckoning and pilotage to track his location)?

Is the question how he was able to use pilotage given that he had no points of reference?

Is his base located inside the uncharted territory? Is its position known? Is it used as a reference point? Irrelevant.

Is his means of navigation particularly clever and innovative (thereby becoming the object of this puzzle), Most likely this. or is it more brute force (he sets out from his home base using well-known navigational techniques such as dead reckoning and pilotage to track his location)? Not this.

Is the question how he was able to use pilotage given that he had no points of reference? He has points of reference. What are they?

Hint -- A well-known convention of maps (particularly old ones) is relevant. When you figure out what that convention is, you'll have the answer.

Are the points of reference within the uncharted territory? Outside of it? On its periphery?

Does he refer to these points through visual means? Do the points of reference allow him to judge distances? Direction?

Is his navigation performed in daylight? The dark of night? Is he using the sun, moon or stars?

Which of his instruments are absolutely required for him to use this means of navigation: - compass - map - timepiece - radio - his eyes - binoculars or telescope - writing instruments - other not listed

Confirming -- his navigational activities do not require the involvement of other people, correct?

Are the points of reference within the uncharted territory? Outside of it? On its periphery? What is your definition of "point of reference?" You may have an FA, but I can't tell. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing first so I don't mislead you.

Does he refer to these points through visual means? Do the points of reference allow him to judge distances? Direction?

Is his navigation performed in daylight? The dark of night? Is he using the sun, moon or stars? Irrelevant.

Which of his instruments are absolutely required for him to use this means of navigation: - compass This.- map This.- timepiece Probably.- radio - his eyes This.- binoculars or telescope - writing instruments Probably.- other not listed

Confirming -- his navigational activities do not require the involvement of other people, correct? Correct.

By point of reference, I mean either a landmark, such as a mountain top, or a direction such as North that can be ascertained with a compass or by looking at the North Star. I am assuming that if there are landmarks, they lay outside of the uncharted territory, and perhaps he can extrapolate his position from them.

Using landmarks and reference points to determine position is pilotage. Extrapolation of position based on speed and duration in a certain direction is dead reckoning. Navigators tend to use a combination of these techniques as they reinforce each other -- I'm trying to figure out how he was able to navigate without using either of these techniques.

So my question is -- did he use elements of pilotage? Of dead reckoning? If so, which one more heavily? Or did his method not rely on either of these?

By point of reference, I mean either a landmark, such as a mountain top, or a direction such as North that can be ascertained with a compass or by looking at the North Star. I am assuming that if there are landmarks, they lay outside of the uncharted territory, and perhaps he can extrapolate his position from them. They do not lie outside of the uncharted territory. He is not using any landmark on the map.

Using landmarks and reference points to determine position is pilotage. Extrapolation of position based on speed and duration in a certain direction is dead reckoning. Navigators tend to use a combination of these techniques as they reinforce each other -- I'm trying to figure out how he was able to navigate without using either of these techniques. He did use these techniques. Hint: Keep in mind that his superiors, who are following his progress over the radio, cannot see any landmarks he might be using. He has to use a different method to indicate to his superiors where he is, because any physical landmarks are not marked on the uncharted portion of the map. He cannot say, "I am five miles south of Village X," because Village X is not on the map.

So my question is -- did he use elements of pilotage? Of dead reckoning? If so, which one more heavily? Dead reckoning is closest. What you haven't figured out yet is what starting point his dead-reckoning is based on. Or did his method not rely on either of these?

Was there a conventional sign on the map to mark the territory as uncharted? or any other sign that appeared to be in this place? (like a logo or signature of the map's author?) And this sign appeared in identical way on all copies of this map? (identical position, identical size) So he could use the sign as reference point? (like: I'm now 24 miles south-southeast to the tip of the dragon's fourth tooth ..)

Was there a conventional sign on the map to mark the territory as uncharted? or any other sign that appeared to be in this place? (like a logo or signature of the map's author?) And this sign appeared in identical way on all copies of this map? (identical position, identical size) So he could use the sign as reference point? (like: I'm now 24 miles south-southeast to the tip of the dragon's fourth tooth ..) You got it.

Spoiler:

*************************

This occurred during an expedition of Chindits, the Indian Army special forces brigade during WWII. As one of their officers wrote:

"We passed through several Naga villages, and learned from them that we were not, as we had idly hoped, the first Europeans to come there: a party of five had visited them seven years before. That would be in 1937, we reflected: what eccentrics had they been? Surveyors, prospectors, forestry people, police? I still do not know: but if they were surveyors, I would dearly like to meet them, to tell them what I think of their surveying.

We were now on the fringe of white spaces on the map boldly marked "Unsurveyed" and surrounded with question-marks. It was of this period that we were afterwards alleged to have sent our evening location over the wireless as "Estimated position two miles south of the 'Y' in 'Unsurveyed.'" If we did so, and I have no clear recollection of doing it, we were either: --

a. a different number of miles in a different direction; or b. lying."

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.